Efficacy and Safety of Sublingual Immunotherapy in Elderly Rhinitis Patients Sensitized to House Dust Mites

Kim, Ji Hye; Lee, Ji Ho; Ye, Young-Min; Lee, Jae Hyun; Hur, Gyu Young; Kim, Joo Hee; Lee, Hyn Young; Shin, Yoo Seob; Yang, Eun Mi; Park, Hae‐Sim

doi:10.4168/aair.2018.10.6.675

Cited by 15 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 32 publications

(41 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, in a randomized not double‐blind trial, the administration of grass and birch SLIT was more effective than each individual allergen in patients with the dual sensitization, and a significant efficacy was seen for birch‐allergic subjects also in the grass season and vice‐versa . Finally, SLIT was demonstrated to be effective also in elderly patients, although this was not expected.…”

Section: The Recent History Of Slitmentioning

confidence: 98%

30 years of sublingual immunotherapy

Passalacqua

Bagnasco

Canonica

2019

Allergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) was introduced in clinical practice on an empirical basis more than 100 years ago. Since the first attempts, AIT was administered subcutaneously. Indeed, other routes of administration were proposed and studied, in particular to improve the safety, but only the sublingual route (SLIT) achieved a credibility based on evidence and was then accepted as a viable “alternative” option to the subcutaneous route. SLIT was largely used in clinical trials and clinical practice in this last 30 years. Thus, a large amount of data is available, coming from either controlled trials and postmarketing surveillance studies. It is clear that SLIT is overall effective, but it is also clear that the efficacy is not “class‐related,” as derived from meta‐analyses, but restricted to each specific product. The 30‐year lasting use of SLIT allowed to clarify many clinical aspects, such as efficacy, safety, use in asthma, regimens of administration, and optimal doses. In parallel, the mechanisms of action of AIT were elucidated, and new indications were proposed (eg food allergy, atopic dermatitis). In addition, the introduction of molecular‐based diagnosis, allowed to better refine the prescription of SLIT, based on specific sensitization profiles. The present article will describe the origin and evolution of SLIT for respiratory allergy, taking into account the clinical context that suggested this form of treatment, the recently developed aspects, the future perspectives and unmet needs, This is not, therefore, a systematic review, rather a narrative historical description of the past history, and a look forward to the future opportunities.

show abstract

Section: The Recent History Of Slitmentioning

confidence: 98%

30 years of sublingual immunotherapy

Passalacqua

Bagnasco

Canonica

2019

Allergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In studies addressing basophil activation, two favored lower expression of CD203c in BAT in AIT groups than placebo groups after 12-18 months of AIT. 36,47 Two studies found no intergroup difference after a relatively shorter duration of treatment (2-4 months). 48,49 One study demonstrated reduced expression of CD63 in the SCIT group after 6 months of treatment.…”

Section: Other Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…However, 2 studies, which suggest no significant changes in sIgG4 during AIT, were not included in the quantitative analyses because of insufficient data on sIgG4. 36,37 The result of the univariate meta-regression analysis was shown in Supplementary Table S2. In multivariate regression, route of AIT and time interval were covariates for sIgG4 (Table 3, R 2 ¼41.09%, I 2 ¼94.05%).…”

Section: Allergen-specific Igg4mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One study reported decreased serum sIgA after 1 year of SLIT compared with baseline levels, 36 while another study showed no changes in sIgA during 4 months of 38 These 2 studies also showed no change in sIgG1 after SLIT, but 2 studies exhibited increased sIgG1 after preseasonal 41 and 10 weeks of SCIT. 37 Only 1 study reported steady sIgM levels during 4month SLIT.…”

Section: Other Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Changes in Immunologic Indicators During Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis and Determinants of Variability: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Jiang

Hao

Liu

et al. 2021

Am J Rhinol�Allergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background To date, there are no generally recognized biomarkers for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) and even the changes in immunological indicators during AIT are inconsistent in different publications. Objective This study was conducted to quantify the immunological changes that occur during AIT and identify the determinants of heterogeneity. Methods Randomized controlled trials of AIT published in the past 10 years were searched in Medline, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL. Data on immunological indicators were extracted, and the characteristics of the included studies were collected. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were conducted for each indicator. The study was registered on the PROSPERO website (CRD42020176127). Results We reviewed 1898 studies. Forty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, and 31 studies were included in the quantitative analyses. Subset analyses by time demonstrated that serum allergen-specific IgE (sIgE) of AIT patients increased in the first 12 months, then decreased and became slightly lower than that of control patients. Allergen-specific IgG4 (sIgG4) was elevated in the AIT group during and after treatment. IgE-blocking factor (IgE-BF) was increased and IgE-facilitated allergen binding (IgE-FAB) was reduced in AIT patients. Both of them of the 2 factors were associated with clinical efficacy in the multivariate regression analysis. sIgE/sIgG4 decreased in AIT patients, while there was no change in total IgE. Conclusion The levels of serum sIgE and sIgG4 during AIT showed a time-dependent pattern. IgE-BF and IgE-FAB should be further investigated as biomarkers for predicting and monitoring AIT efficacy.

show abstract

“…The TNSS considers four common symptoms of AR: rhinorrhea, nasal obstruction, sneezing, and nasal itching. Each symptom is scored from 0 to 3 according to severity (11,17). The sum of the scores for all symptoms was calculated and that score was considered the primary endpoint.…”

Section: Primary and Secondary Endpointmentioning

confidence: 99%

Latent Myofascial Trigger Points Injection Reduced the Severity of Persistent, Moderate to Severe Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Liu

Yang

et al. 2021

Front. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) injection has been effectively used for the management of chronic painful diseases. Latent MTrPs can induce autonomic nerve phenomena. In our clinic, we observed that allergic rhinitis (AR) symptoms significantly improved when latent MTrPs injection was performed for migraine.Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety between latent MTrPs injection and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in patients with persistent, moderate to severe AR.Methods: This randomized controlled trial was conducted with 112 patients with AR. Patients were randomized to receive SLIT (n = 56) or latent MTrPs injection. Total nasal symptom score (TNSS, n = 56), nasal symptoms, medication days, and adverse events were evaluated during the 9 months follow-up period after treatment in both groups.Results: Latent MTrPs injection significantly reduced TNSS to a greater level from baseline (from 8.36 ± 1.96 to 4.43 ± 2.18) than SLIT (from 8.66 ± 2.31 to 7.80 ± 2.47) at week 1 (P < 0.001), and sustained the improvement in symptoms throughout to month 9. Latent MTrPs showed statistically significant differences vs. SLIT for the TNSS reduction both at month 2 (6.59 ± 2.37 vs. 2.64 ± 2.38; p < 0.001) and month 3 (4.59 ± 2.77 vs. 2.62 ± 2.43; p <0.001). Latent MTrPs also showed a better improvement in the onset time of efficacy compared with SLIT. Adverse reactions were few and non-serious in both treatment groups.Conclusions: Latent MTrPs injection significantly improved symptoms and decreased symptom-relieving medication use in patients with AR and was well tolerated.Clinical Trials Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR1900020590. Registered 9 January 2019, http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx.

show abstract

Efficacy and Safety of Sublingual Immunotherapy in Elderly Rhinitis Patients Sensitized to House Dust Mites

Cited by 15 publications

References 32 publications

30 years of sublingual immunotherapy

30 years of sublingual immunotherapy

Changes in Immunologic Indicators During Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis and Determinants of Variability: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Latent Myofascial Trigger Points Injection Reduced the Severity of Persistent, Moderate to Severe Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About